The "vs" there does not necessarily refer to outright conflict, though it sometimes may. It refers to the internal, mental conflict and reconciliation between being a Satanist, and living in a society which is not Satanic.

Now, I find it safe to say that we Satanists all see ourselves as Satanists before any sort of racial or national identity.

Even if one takes pride in one's national history, language, culture, which some do more than others, Satanism comes before any of that.

This isn't pride in the same sense of individual achievement pride; it is a different sort of "pride", a natural or collective sort, one which I will only respect someone expressing if they also possess individual achievement pride.

Anyway, we are individuals, then Satanists. Satanism describes that individual, but we would each be our own selves regardless of whether or not Satanism existed and we knew of it. (I know, I don't like using "we" so much to speak for others, but I find it safe here, and unavoidable, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Satanism describes our world-view, our drive in life, our sense of justice. Satanists as individuals have VERY different conclusions on politics, entertainment tastes, and professions, but are definitely all Satanists, joined in their un-joining.

But now, before you realized you were a Satanist, and embraced that title by name, you grew up in a society in which the vast majority of people are not Satanists.

The dominant religion was something else, however much people did or didn't really believe in it, or it was a society with mostly secular people.

Either way, religious or Secular Humanist, they were not Satanists, and the society on the whole was "herd"; collectivist, pridefully ignorant, guilt-ridden-yet-brash.

And yet, you learned the language of that culture, read some books in it, lived in a dwelling in it, likely went to school there, worked there later.

Surely, that culture must also inform you, and you may prefer it over some other cultures, and prefer some cultures or countries over it?

For example, I live in the US, in New York State, and I like how generally secular my area is, how much personal privacy I generally have, how clean the streets are in my neighborhood, the museums and some of the television shows and some of the architecture. The scientific and business success here.

Even if it's not a Satanic nation or city or culture per se, it has many features which I LIKE, I like to live here, overall, and I feel a sense of pride in the United States and all our great technological and medical achievements, and stability and human freedom. (The stability and freedom being relative, obviously.)

In a Muslim or Communist country I wouldn't have what I have here.

I am an American, and a Westerner. Those identities are in a hierarchy below Satanism, but there.

I like a lot of holidays here too, forgot to mention that; Halloween most of all, Christmas and Thanksgiving too, the good parts of those anyway. The food and smells and the decorations that are well done (most suck)and some of the music when I'm not tired of it.

Anyway, I can Satanically look at the culture around me, and see many things in it I like, and can read about the history of this country and culture and find I like it and am proud of it, overall. (Fucktons to criticize too, obviously.)

What is your attitude towards your "host culture"?

Are you proud of it?

Do you hate it and want to leave as soon as possible, did you leave where you were born and grew up as soon as possible?

Is it just meaningless to you?

Curious to see the perspective of other Satanists, and again, I didn't mean to be presumptuous above, please correct me if I'm wrong at all.

I'm very pleased I don't live in a more oppressive country. It's not pride. I just gloat.

Most technological and industrial achievements, such as the motor-car which was invented by Mercedes-Benz and later mass-produced by Henry Ford, came from Europeans. America has simply made greater economic use of them. Proof that capitalism works as a foundation for building an empire.

Being Canadian I think I have even less of a "culture" to identify with than Americans, or Britons. Canada, especially now, is a smorgasbord of culture, language, history, cuisine and aesthetics (Chinatown looks vastly different to Russiatown, etc). We get little bits of everything all the time, all mashed together into a miasma of mediocrity and dullness.

I personally identify with very little of that "culture", and find myself often identifying more with the American ideals of freedom, liberty and the absolute separation of church and state (despite it not being the case as much as it was originally intended).

I do not doubt that it was my exposure to American shows on the Cathode Ray God that significantly coloured my views early on. However, I do find it somewhat ironic that despite all my attempts through life to become "one" with the herd, I always failed. There was always something that felt "weird" to me about trying to adopt the opinions of others, rather than forming my own. Entering into the adult world of responsibility, and taking the long path of discovery through all the worlds religions, finding my "place" within the universe, as it were... until finally happening, almost by chance, on the mirror that reflected me most clearly, was certainly an enlightening experience. Lucifer most certainly was the bringer of my light!

Tangent aside, culture to me, now more than ever, almost seems like a function of the herd. I identify with things I find aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy the German language, but am only very distantly of German heritage (tiny fraction). I enjoy the history of feudal Japan and the poetry of the samurai, but have no "cultural" connection to the era nor the people.

In sum, as a Satanist, I am who I was born to be, and while there are societal influences that pushed me in different directions, as a carnal god unto myself, I supersede those influences and in their place, delicately lay the foundations of my utter enjoyment of my life.

As I see it the trick here is to see through what most people think is real to what actually is real.

There really are no such things as "nationalities", "cultures", etc.

There are only individuals who think of themselves in this way.

Identifying with any "group" begins with the error of confusing something that individuals do (a process) with a non-existent "thing" called "culture", for example.

Once you recognize that these are all simply actions performed mentally (thinking) or physically (feeling and speaking and so forth) but that they are not really something you can identify with, a "thing", then the problems resolve themselves immediately.

So there really isn't a "thing" called a "Satanist" or a "Canadian" or an "American" or any other group "identity" at all.

There are only the actions, mental and physical, that individuals can take. You can think Satanically. You can act Satanically.

You can even use a form of mental "shorthand" and refer to yourself as "a Satanist" just as long as you don't forget that this is only a label for actions you do and not really a description of what you are.

So how does ceasing to reify these actions into identities resolve these issues?

Let's just rephrase some of these issues without confusing a process with an thing.

Quote:

Anyway, we are individuals, then Satanists. Satanism describes that individual, but we would each be our own selves regardless of whether or not Satanism existed and we knew of it.

This becomes:

Anyway, we are individuals, we think and act Satanically. Satanism describes a way of thinking and acting, but we would each be our own selves regardless of whether or not Satanism existed and we knew of it.

And this

Quote:

What is your attitude towards your "host culture"?

Are you proud of it?

Do you hate it and want to leave as soon as possible, did you leave where you were born and grew up as soon as possible?

Is it just meaningless to you?

Becomes this

What is your attitude towards the ways in which other individuals in your "host culture" act?

Are you proud of their actions?

Do you hate their actions and want to leave as soon as possible, did you leave where you were born and grew up as soon as possible?

Are there actions by others that are just meaningless to you?

So by no means am I suggesting that there are no Satanists out there.

What I am suggesting is that what people do can be described as if that is what they are but if we remember that these are all only descriptions of actions and not identities then we can better understand what is happening.

Otherwise we tend to niche individuals into categories that may not really fit their actions past, present, or future.

I like to say that a group is nothing more than a bunch of individuals who forgot they were each really there.

Satanism is very much involved with perceiving the world as it is. Since a large part of what causes confusion and trouble for people consists of believing in group identities (instead of recognizing that these are nothing more than descriptions of ways to think and act) then to drop that fallacy (reification) opens wide the Gates of Hell and puts into stark focus the true Undefiled Wisdom which is Satanism.

It is quite usual to mix two separate things together. The idea of one being something, and the idea that you are what you do. Chef is a chef cause his job is to make food in restaurant and for making it easier to define oneself we have decided to call that person who has certain competence and certain kind of job to chef.

In nature most animals (except man of course) do not describe themselves through labels. Cat does not think of her cattiness, she just acts and lives the way that suites her best. The cats life.

Magister Nemo (once again) wrote a great post about the issue, and with this idea we could go still further.

Cause there is no Satanism as entity separate from acting Satanically (except as thought), we could also say that there is no I as separate entity cause the idea of me being something is just a thought, not entity. The I which I identify myself to is really an I just when compared to thought I have or act I do. Cause I does exist only in my thoughts, my thoughts create the reality where I live. In that reality where I live, I have to do something to identify myself to it. For example, if one is believer and believes in god he sees god as real in his mind (it is real in the sense that mind creates the reality where one lives) and identifies his idea of oneself to the believe he got (in his mind) labeling himself to Christian (by definition). Without this believe in ones mind there would really not be any believer as naturally existing entity. Believer is believer only when compared to something he or she believes.

All the cultures and nationalities are man made constructions to give common identity to certain group of people. We have American, European, Japanese etcetera cultures which describe the group of people. This group with culture is something we call with the name nation and the area where they live country. This group called nation in the land called country creates state called government and these governments separate themselves from other countries and nations integrating the people to land, nation and government. With this simple action this group of people (herd) creates the basis to feel national pride about themselves (as group). The basis for this construction is not naturally existing, but created identity of certain group as separate nation. I guess the main reason for acting like this is, that most people are herd conformists and need some group to identify themselves to.

A singular group of people, say, "Satanists", is in fact merely a collection of individuals who perform actions and express thoughts (we can only theorize on what thoughts are forming inside someone's head) which we identify as Satanic. (Following the Laws of the Earth, avoiding the Satanic Sins, being atheistic, etc. etc.)

A singular group of people, "Muslims", are individuals who base their actions and thoughts off of the ideas that comprise Islam, derived from the Quarn and the Hadith. Some Muslims act as Shiia Muslims, some Muslims act as Sunni Muslims, there is no more a "Shiite Muslims" or "Suni Muslims" any more than there are "Muslims".

In both cases, it is mental short-hand to refer to these collections of similarly acting individuals as groups, more specifically religious groups.

Now, what about something biological, like race or sex?

It gets complicated, especially with race, because there's older racial theory based on physically observed characteristics (skin, facial characteristics) and then newer grouping based on DNA, and in either case, the grouping of people into races is ultimately arbitrary, regardless of its possible usefulness.

Can't someone BE white, or black, then?

The "what individuals do" idea seems more applicable to seeing the truth of ideological or cultural groups, (religious, political, linguistic) and I see that as useful for resolving unnecessary confusion and cognitive dissonance over identity.

But then isn't biological fact, even if arbitrarily divided up and categorized by us, a description of "what is/what are"?

But, then I see you wisely like to keep things simple and practical, and that is how I see you so often cut to the heart of a matter and show useful Satanic wisdom:

"White" and "Black" are also seen as cultural groups in many instances...it is difficult for words to describe what is, I see that.

"White" and "Black" are also seen as cultural groups in many instances...it is difficult for words to describe what is, I see that.

Being "white" or being "black" depends on location. I've met plenty of "white" people from Africa and they all considered themselves African. Yet over here in America they would be considered white by others.

I also met quite a few "blacks" from the U.K. and they all considered themselves as British. Yet over here in America they are considered black by others.

Sometimes it can also depend on someone's mindset. One of my best friends is Irish/Scottish descent and he is blacker than me. He looks like a skinhead but he is definitely "black". I even had a girlfriend straight from Denmark and she would swear up and down that she was "black" to the point that I even thought she was black.

"White" and "Black" are also seen as cultural groups in many instances...it is difficult for words to describe what is, I see that.

Being "white" or being "black" depends on location. I've met plenty of "white" people from Africa and they all considered themselves African. Yet over here in America they would be considered white by others.

I also met quite a few "blacks" from the U.K. and they all considered themselves as British. Yet over here in America they are considered black by others.

Sometimes it can also depend on someone's mindset. One of my best friends is Irish/Scottish descent and he is blacker than me. He looks like a skinhead but he is definitely "black". I even had a girlfriend straight from Denmark and she would swear up and down that she was "black" to the point that I even thought she was black.

That's exactly what I meant. Where you draw the line or define "White" and "Black" varies in different places, and differs according to individuals.

Speaking of the UK, Pakistanis and Indians there are called "Asians" when "Asian" only refers to Far East Asians in the US; black hair, "squinty" eyes typically.

My point was that these terms are different cultural groupings or individual identities that aren't scientifically objective.

Just as we recognize that values are determined by the individual (there is no universal, objective set of standards for "good" or "evil"), so too all categories that individuals create to describe things are also arbitrary and an abstraction of what they are intended to describe.

The map is never as rich as the territory it describes.

Words can point to experience but cannot contain it.

Getting this perspective clarifies most of what people argue about during coffee breaks and on television.

Just as we recognize that values are determined by the individual (there is no universal, objective set of standards for "good" or "evil"), so too all categories that individuals create to describe things are also arbitrary and an abstraction of what they are intended to describe.

The map is never as rich as the territory it describes.

Words can point to experience but cannot contain it.

Getting this perspective clarifies most of what people argue about during coffee breaks and on television.

I totally agree with this statement of yours Magister!

Far too often people identify themselves to things totally secondary like political ideology, religious view or profession. I personally think as pragmatist that things like these should be seen more as tools than as solid identities.